18756 Spieler sind gerade online!
Mensch gegen Maschine - viel Glück!
Fernschach mit freier Zeiteinteilung
Gemeinsam analysieren und für den besten Zug abstimmen
Hast du das Zeug dazu?
Schärfe deinen taktischen Blick!
Tipps und Tricks rund ums Schach
Lerne von Topspielern & Profis!
Millionen von Meisterpartien!
Dein virtueller Schachtrainer!
Feile an deinen Eröffnungen!
Teste und trainiere dein Können gegen den Computer!
Finde den richtigen privaten Trainer für dich!
Kannst du sie jeden Tag lösen?
Komplettpläne: Schach lernen, vertiefen und trainieren!
Finde Freunde & spiele im Team!
Neues aus der Welt des Schachs!
Finde Vereine und Veranstaltungen in deiner Nähe!
Wer von deinen Freunden ist der Beste?
Lies, was andere Mitglieder sagen!
Nice games Chess_Troller, you seem to live up to your name.
Yeah, thank you very much :D
I don't think there is a clear definition when the opening becomes a middlegame and when the middlegame becomes an endgame. Some might argue that you are still playing the opening when you follow theory moves, even if the position is closer to a middlegame or endgame. In the Fischer and Petrosion game I certainly wouldn't call it an endgame after the queens get exchanged. The play is more about the open files and piece activity rather than getting the king active after all, so I would consider it to be more of a middlegame. If someone would say they study endgames I certainly wouldn't expect them to study games like that.
The olders say that the opening is completed when the rooks face each other and the ending starts when the king feels safe to activate him self. From a practical point of view a huge percentage of openings acomplished that rule. Those who dont its because one of the two players have done a positional mistake or there is a forced sequence ( like Berlin ) who leads that situation. Its more difficult to point the moment when the middlegame its an endgame because depends a lot from the position. The fact is that with out Queens in the game, the king is more safe to mobilise and thats why, many times players dont castle when Queens are out. The Fischer- Spassky game , Bobby has castled before the exchange and Borris has to castle cause the file its open with the rook opposite. The position has already simplified, there are not so many tactical issues to been solved. Fischer activate his Bishops better, use the dark squared bishop trade, to force an another exchange with his knight, to penetrate the 6th or the 7th rank. Spassky loses the position and resign... Its not a typical or a clasical endgame, but its the endgame of this certain sequence. Some times happens because we cant defin the quntinuation...
An endgame is when there are only a few pieces left. There is no strict criterion for when an endgame begins, and different experts have different opinions (Fine 1952:430).Alexander Alekhine said "We cannot define when the middle game ends and the end-game starts" (Whitaker & Hartleb 1960). With the usual system for chess piece relative value, Speelman considers that endgames are positions in which each player has thirteen or fewer points in material (not counting the king). Alternatively, an endgame is a position in which the king can be used actively, but there are some famous exceptions to that (Speelman 1981:7–8). Minev characterizes endgames as positions having four or fewer pieces other than kings and pawns (Minev 2004:5). Some authors consider endgames to be positions without queens (e.g. Fine, 1952), while others consider a position to be an endgame when each player has less than a queen plus rook in material. Flear considers an endgame to be where each player has at most one piece (other than kings and pawns) and positions with more material where each player has at most two pieces to be "Not Quite an Endgame" (NQE), pronounced "nuckie" (Flear 2007:7–8).
Alburt and Krogius give three characteristics of an endgame: (Alburt & Krogius 2000:12)
Some problem composers consider that the endgame starts when the player who is about to move can force a win or a draw against any variation of moves (Portisch & Sárközy 1981:vii).
Mednis and Crouch address the question of what constitutes an endgame negatively. The game is still in the middlegame if middlegame elements still describe the position. The game is not in the endgame if these apply:
If you consider it to be an endgame in the Fischer Spassky game, then fine with me, but my main point is that there is no clear definition when an endgame starts. I would not consider it an endgame since I don't feel the characteristics for an endgame like active king is important yet.
Agreed. No position with five pieces per side can be considered an endgame and four pieces per side is murky ground, sometimes even when one is a queen.
So, done with the academics? Then let's get back to the topic ;)
I believe there are positions you can't put your self in trouble to learn about them if you first don't become an expert. With your hand in your heart, how many of you are prepared to play an pawnless endgame two bishops vs one knight? It's an endgame that requires a presiacly technique and before computers arrived many GM where consider it as a draw. It's an endgame that beginners would never understand and those who are in a level between intermediate and advanced will also have a tough moments to realize. The procedure to study some parts of the game should be adapt to the general knowledge of the individual player has plus his tactical ability. You can't teach someone how to run if he don't knows how to walk...
I think 2 bishops vs one knight is one of the endgames that is negatively effected by the 50 move rule with perfect play. I'm not sure if that matters though, I have never reached that endgame and if I did I might try to win it, although I doubt I would be successfull.
I think trying to learn how to win with 2 bishops vs knight is a waste of time for both expert and those who are not expert players. Pawn endgames and rook endgames for example are more important.
I've lost that endgame twice haha
I agree with you, but when it happens...the feeling is awfoul because you didnt know how and when. Like suddenly you play a different game with no theory at all.
"Hack Attack! with IM Thomas Rendle and HongKongJohn "
1/29/2015 - White Wins
von gourob vor wenige Minuten
Admins: Spam alert, you may wish to check this
von MSC157 vor 120 Sekunden
What would be the value of this piece?
von Sqod vor 2 Minuten
Chess Wisdom and Success
von A_L_I_V_E vor 2 Minuten
I need suggestions to suprise my opponent today.
von jblo vor 7 Minuten
Millionaire Chess 2!!
von themaskedbishop vor 9 Minuten
Why I Like ICC
von MSC157 vor 9 Minuten
Practical differences between 1. e4 and 1. d4 ?
von Fiveofswords vor 9 Minuten
Choise of opening: Spanish or Italian-Spanish
von Fiveofswords vor 12 Minuten
Can you spot vishy?
von stuzzicadenti vor 14 Minuten
Warum Mitglied werden? | Schachthemen |
Über uns |
Hilfe & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Schach - Deutsch
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!